Are Law Enforcement Cameras an Invasion of Privacy - Literature review Example

Are law enforcement cameras an invasion of privacy? The intrusion in the private life of people worldwide is often tolerated by law under the pressure of the increasing threats against critical rights, such as the right to health and safety. However, the use of electronic devices for capturing scenes from the daily life of individuals is clearly opposed to the rule of law which highlights, both through legislation and the case law, the significance of privacy as a human right. In the context of USA law, privacy is defined as ‘a civil liberty, a right to be free of outside interference’ (Regan 4). In 1995, the British government defined privacy as incorporating two rights: ‘a) the right to be free from harassment and b) the right to privacy of personal information’ (Stanco 3). This paper aims to show that the use of law enforcement cameras is an invasion of privacy, a fact that should be taken into consideration by legislators and policy makers internationally. Academic literature published on this issue is used for supporting the above argument. At the same time, reports published by organizations in common law countries, i.e. UK, USA and Canada, are presented so that any conclusion is fully justified. The legal implications of law enforcement cameras have been extensively explored in the academic literature. A series of studies have been chosen for supporting this paper’s thesis that the use of law enforcement cameras should be considered as an invasion of privacy. Froomkin (2000) explains that ‘Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) cameras and video recorders are broadly used for monitoring public spaces’ (Froomkin 1577). Reference is made to these cameras’ expansion in UK as a result of the country’s need to secure the safety of its citizen by IRA’s terrorist attacks (Froomkin 1577). It is noted though that through the decades these cameras have been installed even in places where no threats for terrorist attacks exist, such as in ports (Froomkin 1577). In any case, there are certain issues that need to be discussed: a) the actual power of individuals ‘to protect themselves against the potential sale of their private data is quite limited’ (Froomkin 1502); this problem is mostly related to the unawareness of people in regard to the existing privacy laws; b) the First Amendment that refers to ‘the freedom of association’ (Froomkin 1506) can be used for setting borders to the expansion of these cameras in public spaces. Referring specifically to the English law of privacy, Lord Walker (2010) notes that ‘the tort of invasion of privacy in UK is rather recent’ (Walker 1); in fact, the initial reference to the violation of privacy, as a tort, in the English courts can be identified in the case ‘Douglas v Hello in 2000’ (Walker 2). The above decision reflects the alignment of the British legislation, especially of the Human Rights Act of 1998, with the ‘European Convention on Human Rights’ (Walker 2), where the right of each individual ‘to respect for his private and family life’ (article 8) is clearly set. At the next level, the Human Rights Act of 1998 notes that it is not allowed to public authorities to proceed to initiatives that violate the right of individuals to privacy, as this right is secured by the European Convention (Walker 2). It is made clear though that the terms of the Convention for privacy may be violated if it is not possible for public authorities to act in a different way (Walker 2). According to the above, the use of law enforcement cameras can be characterized as a violation to the Convention’s orders because of the following: the public authorities may use different tools for controlling public spaces; the use of security guards could be a potential alternative for protecting public spaces without violating the right to privacy. Taylor (2002) also claims that the use of CCTV cameras can be considered as opposed to the article 8 of the European Convention; it is suggested that the use of these cameras is appropriately regulated so that the right to privacy is not threatened (Taylor 2002). The response of the public in UK towards CCTV cameras was explored by Spriggs et al. (2005). In the report that the above researchers prepared for the Home Office the results of an extensive survey conducted across UK in regard to this issue are presented. In the relevant survey two trends were identified: a high percentage of the participants, about 80%, claimed that CCTV cameras could help towards the reduction of crime (Taylor et al. 39). However, a percentage of 17% of the participants noted that the use of these cameras sets concerns in regard to the privacy rights of individuals (Taylor et al. 48). It is suggested for further research to be developed on this field especially since a high percentage of participants seemed to be unaware of the potential effects of these cameras on the right to privacy (Taylor et al. 49). In 2004 a warning was published by the authority ‘monitoring the protection of personal data in UK, the Information Commissioner’ (Murakami and Ball 3); according to this warning the society in UK seems to be transformed to ‘a surveillance society’ (Murakami and Ball 3). CCTV cameras are incorporating in the list of technologies that contribute to the above phenomenon (Murakami and Ball 5). The use of law enforcement cameras in public spaces and the implications of this practice have been checked by organizations worldwide. The results of the relevant studies seem to be contradictory: in certain cases, the use of law enforcement cameras has been extensive while elsewhere limits have been set taking into consideration the value of privacy, as a fundamental right. Reference should be primarily made to a study published by the Urban Institute in 2011. In the context of that study the implications of the use of law enforcement cameras ‘in three cities, Baltimore, Chicago and Washington’ (Urban Institute 1) were examined. In Baltimore, a series of 500 cameras has been installed in the city’s downtown area (Urban Institute 1). No complaint for violation of privacy was reported while a significant decrease of crime in the relevant areas was reported (Urban Institute 2). In Chicago the use of law enforcement cameras led to opposing outcomes. In the above city law enforcement cameras were installed in two neighbours: in one of these neighbours the use of these cameras resulted in the significant reduce of crime while in the other region a different outcome appeared: in the second region people had the complaint that the police officers did not check the cameras regularly, and no actual benefit could result (Urban Institute 2). In other words, in Chicago the potential threats of privacy from the use of law enforcement cameras were not taken into consideration: securing the personal safety was set as a priority by local people. In Washington the potential threats against the right of privacy were set as a priority by citizens (Urban Institute 3). For this reason, the use of law enforcement cameras in the above city was limited (Urban Institute 3). The benefits in terms of crime prevention in the particular city were also reduced, compared to Baltimore and Chicago where the use of law enforcement cameras has been extensive. In the report published in 2011 by the American Civil Liberties Union reference is made to the implications of the extensive use of surveillance cameras in Chicago. In the particular city there are about ‘10,000 surveillance cameras, installed both in public and private spaces’ (ACLU 9). The city’s police officers have full access to the above network, a fact that has caused concerns in regard to the potential limitation of the right of privacy (ACLU 9). It should be noted that the existed regulation does not cover all aspects of this practice, especially in regard to the following four functions: ‘(1) the pan-tilt-zoom function, (2) the facial recognition function, (3) the automatic tracking function, and (4) retaining and disseminating images’ (ACLU 12). According to the members of ACLU, the use of surveillance cameras, at such level as in Chicago, can hide a series of risks: ‘a) the freedom not to be monitored when being in public spaces is violated, b) the freedom of speech and assembly is also threatened, c) the use of the material gathered through these cameras cannot be fully controlled’ (ACLU 14). Emphasis should be also given to the following fact: in other cities the use of surveillance cameras has resulted to severe problems such as: a) the administrator of the camera may decide to focus on specific parts of a person’s body and b) the phenomenon of discrimination in regard to the use of these cameras has been quite common (ACLU 16). The use of the surveillance cameras in another common law country, Canada, is explained in a report developed by Deisman et al. (2009) for the Surveillance Camera Awareness Network. According to the above report, in Canada, the use of law enforcement cameras is an issue related to the country’s privacy regulation (Deisman et al. 30). However, the material gathered through surveillance cameras placed quite high for monitoring the traffic cannot be controlled using the law of privacy (Deisman et al. 30). The regulatory framework that covers the use of these cameras is under the control of the local privacy commissioner (Deisman et al. 30). As in most countries, the use of a notification that is visible to the public is considered as a critical tool for taking the consent of individuals for the collection of their private information by surveillance cameras (Deisman et al. 30-31). However, these notifications have been set under examination, as to whether they are adequate for securing the consent of individuals for the collection of their private information (Deisman et al. 31). The potential threat of law enforcement cameras in Canada for privacy is reflected to the following fact: the regulation related to the protection of privacy ‘cannot be applied unless a complaint is submitted so that an intervention, in the form of an order, is decided’ (Deisman et al. 34). However, since there is no history in regard to such interventions, the process remains unknown to the high majority of people who are not aware of their privacy rights regarding the surveillance cameras (Deisman et al. 34). Indeed, up to now, ‘no such order has been ever issued by Ontario’s commissioner’ (Deisman et al. 34). The above fact verifies the lack of effective mechanisms for protecting the privacy right across Canada, a phenomenon common though in many countries worldwide. A report of ACLU in 2011 refers to another aspect of the issue under examination: the use of drones across USA for surveillance purposes (ACLU 2011). In the specific report emphasis is given on the continuous expansion of the use of drones for a variety of reasons, including ‘the law enforcement and the promotion of specific political and industrial interests’ (ACLU 11). In the report it is made clear that drones, which use cameras of advanced technology for capturing scenes or for shooting events/ landscapes, cannot be used as a common tool of law enforcement; rather, their use should be clearly regulated so that the rights of individuals are not violated (ACLU 11). Indeed, the use of drones can lead to concerns related to the right of privacy (ACLU 11). The above view is justified by referring to the following facts: a) currently, drones are used across USA just for surveillance/ gathering of information helping the authorities to develop effectively rescue projects and similar initiatives (ACLU 11). However, there is no guarantee that their key mission will remain the same in the future (ACLU 11), b) also, the information gathered through drones may be misused by employees in public services (ACLU 11); c) due to their potential to cover extensive areas, drones can capture scenes from the personal life of individuals without their consent (ACLU 11). The privacy concerns related to drones are presented in this paper since drones are based on surveillance cameras for gathering information according to the orders incorporated in their systems. In a recent article in Seattle Times emphasis is given on the installation of an extensive network of cameras along the city’s port (Clarridge 2013). The specific initiative was not welcomed; fears exist that the use of surveillance cameras at such level can severely threaten the right of privacy, giving to the authorities the potential to gather information on the private life of numerous people without their consent (Clarridge 2013). The research over the academic literature and the publications of selected organizations has verified this paper’s thesis statement: law enforcement cameras lead to the violation of the right of privacy. Still, it has been proved that the employment of these cameras as a law enforcement tool is continuously increased. On the other hand, the value of these cameras for preventing crimes cannot be denied. The need for the update of existing regulation is clear: laws setting specific criteria for the use of such cameras should be introduced so that the right of privacy is not violated. The literature presented above can lead to the following assumption: legislators and public authorities are aware of the gaps related to the use of law enforcement cameras. However, the interests served by the expansion of these cameras, as tools for gathering valuable information, seem to be critical. In this context, even in countries where laws exist for securing the right of privacy, the expansion of law enforcement is difficult to be controlled. The case of Canada, where law enforcement cameras are controlled by the law of privacy, is an indicative example of the above phenomenon. Works Cited American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU. “CHICAGO’S VIDEO SURVEILLANCE CAMERAS: A PERVASIVE AND UNREGULATED THREAT TO OUR PRIVACY.” February 2011. Web. 7 July 2013 . American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU. “Protecting Privacy From Aerial Surveillance: Recommendations for Government Use of Drone Aircraft.” December 2011. Web. 7 July 2013 . Clarridge, Christine. “Waterfront surveillance cameras stir privacy fears.” Feb 1, 2013. The Seattle Times. Web. 7 July 2013 . Deisman, Wade, Derby, Patrick, Doyle, Aaron, Leman-Langlois, Stephane, Lippert, Randy, Lyon, David, Pridmore, Jason, Smith, Emily, Walby, Kevin and Whitson, Jennifer. “A Report on Camera Surveillance in Canada - Part One.” Surveillance Camera Awareness Network (SCAN). Office of the Privacy Commissioner, Ottawa. January 2009. Web. 7 July 2013 . Froomkin, Michael. “The Death of Privacy?” STANFORD LAW REVIEW, 52:1461-1543 (2000) . Murakami, David and Ball, Kirstie. “A Report on the Surveillance Society.” For the Information Commissioner, by the Surveillance Studies Network. September 2006. Web. 7 July 2013 . Regan, Priscilla. Legislating Privacy: Technology, Social Values, and Public Policy. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1995. Spriggs, Angela, Argomaniz, Javier, Gill, Martin and Bryan, Jane. “Public attitudes towards CCTV: results from the Pre-intervention Public Attitude Survey carried out in areas implementing CCTV.” Home Office Online Report (October 2005). Web. 7 July 2013 . Stanco, Daria. British Press Freedom and Privacy. Norderstedt: GRIN Verlag, 2008. Taylor, Nick. “State Surveillance and the Right to Privacy.” Surveillance & Society 1(1): 66-85 (2002) . Urban Institute. “Evaluating the Use of Public Surveillance Cameras for Crime Control and Prevention—A Summary.” Washington, Justice Policy Center , 2011. Web. 7 July 2013 . Walker, Robert. “THE ENGLISH LAW OF PRIVACY - AN EVOLVING HUMAN RIGHT.” Web. 7 July 2013 . Read More